U.S. Moves Cautiously Against Syrian Leaders

The divergent American responses to the crises in Libya and Syria illustrate the starkly different calculations that the United States faces in these countries.

MARK LANDLER

WASHINGTON — A brutal Arab dictator with a long history of enmity toward the United States turns tanks and troops against his own people, killing hundreds of protesters. His country threatens to split along sectarian lines, with the violence potentially spilling over to its neighbors, some of whom are close allies of Washington.

Libya? Yes, but also Syria.

And yet, with the Syrian government’s bloody crackdown intensifying on Friday, President Obama has not demanded that President Bashar al-Assad resign, and he has not considered military action. Instead, on Friday, the White House took a step that most experts agree will have a modest impact: announcing focused sanctions against three senior officials, including a brother and a cousin of Mr. Assad.

The divergent American responses illustrate the starkly different calculations the United States faces in these countries. For all the parallels to Libya, Mr. Assad is much less isolated internationally than the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. He commands a more capable army, which experts say is unlikely to turn on him, as the military in Egypt did on President Hosni Mubarak. And the ripple effects of Mr. Assad’s ouster would be both wider and more unpredictable than in the case of Colonel Qaddafi.

“Syria is important in a way that Libya is not,” said Steven A. Cook, senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. “There is no central U.S. interest engaged in Libya. But a greatly destabilized Syria has implications for Iraq, it has implications for Lebanon, it has implications for Israel.”

These complexities have made Syria a less clear-cut case, even for those who have called for more robust American action against Libya. Senator John McCain, along with Senators Lindsey Graham and Joseph I. Lieberman, urged Mr. Obama earlier this week to demand Mr. Assad’s resignation. But Mr. McCain, an early advocate of a no-fly zone over Libya, said he opposed military action in Syria.

Human rights groups are even more cautious. “If Obama were to call for Assad to go, I don’t think it would change things on the ground in any way, shape or form,” said Joe Stork, deputy director of the Middle East division of Human Rights Watch, which had supported military action in Libya. In this case, he said, sanctions were the right move.

Those measures freeze the assets of three top officials, most notably Maher al-Assad, President Assad’s brother and a brigade commander who is leading the operations in Dara’a. But Syrian leaders tend to keep their money in European and Middle Eastern banks, putting it beyond the reach of the Treasury.

The measures also take aim at Syria’s intelligence agency and the Quds Force of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, an elite paramilitary unit already under heavy sanctions from the United States. Iran, officials said, is using the force to funnel tear gas, batons and other riot gear to Syria.

The administration did not impose sanctions on President Assad, saying it focused on those directly responsible for human-rights abuses. A senior official said the United States would not hesitate to add him to the list if the violence did not stop. But the White House seemed to be calculating that it could still prevail on him to show restraint.

“Our goal is to end the violence and create an opening for the Syrian people’s legitimate aspirations,” said a spokesman for the National Security Council, Tommy Vietor. “These are among the U.S. government’s strongest available tools to promote these outcomes.”

The European Union said Friday that it was preparing an arms embargo against Syria and threatened further sanctions and cuts in aid. And in Geneva, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution condemning the violence, though the statement was diluted from one drafted by the United States.

The debate over the United Nations resolution demonstrated the difficulty in marshaling international censure of Syria. In Geneva, 26 countries supported the resolution, but nine voted against it, including Russia and China. The two countries blocked a similar effort to pass a resolution at the Security Council this week, a stark contrast to the tough action on Libya.

Even for the Obama administration, abandoning Mr. Assad has costs. For two years, it cultivated him in hopes that Syria would break the logjam in the Middle East peace process by signing a treaty with Israel. The United States tried to lure Syria away from Iran, the greatest American nemesis in the area.

Even the possibility of a change in leadership in Syria had reverberations this week, with the surprise agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to form a unity government. By most accounts, Hamas was motivated in part by a fear that if Mr. Assad were forced from power, it could lose its patron in Damascus.

Disarray in Syria could threaten Israel’s security more directly. While Israeli officials point out that Mr. Assad has hardly been a friend of Israel, if he were replaced by a militant Sunni government, this could pose even greater dangers.

Israel’s sensitivity about Syria is so acute that when reports began circulating this week that Israeli officials were pressing the White House to be less tough on Damascus, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael B. Oren, called reporters to insist that his government was doing nothing of the sort.

Among other countries that are sensitive: Turkey, which shares a border with Syria and a Kurdish population that could be stirred up by unrest; and Saudi Arabia, which does not want to see another Arab government topple. While Mr. Assad’s fall would damage Iran’s regional ambitions, analysts offer caveats.

“The regime coming down in a speedy, orderly transition to a Sunni government would be a setback for Iran, but that’s not what’s happening,” said Andrew J. Tabler, a Syria expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “We’re headed for something much messier. The Iranians can play around in that.”

As the administration weighs its options, it faces a sobering fact: The United States has little influence over Damascus. Still, some analysts said the United States must leave open the possibility of tougher measures.

“If a Benghazi-style massacre is threatened, we would have to consider a humanitarian intervention under the same principle,” said Martin S. Indyk, Brookings Institution’s director of foreign policy. “Hard to imagine at this point when the death toll is 400. But if it rises to tens of thousands?”

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.